Posts made by Chris_Henry

@captainnapalm I’m just pointing out that the UK reference sheet for the “Declarations of War” section specifically mentions the ability to declare war on the CCP. There is no specific mention of declarations of war on warlords (again, unless considering them as minor powers). So my example was more of one that we know for sure could happen in game.

Attacking a warlord is essentially attacking the KMT in a sense. But it’s not really the same way if attacking the CCP. By the letter of the law it would still activate the warlords for the KMT without having to actually attack the warlords. That’s all I was pointing out.

But yeah, I guess the real question is if the warlords are considered minor nations or not. The game refers to them as “factions” all the time, but I suppose looking at 4.2 Minor Powers that it says "All other nations are Minor Powers. Without any other ruling, I suppose that’s the letter of the law, and warlords would be considered minor nations? I don’t know I guess.

My gut tells me it wasn’t really considered that the Allies might attack a warlord given the chance, and that this wasn’t meant to be able to happen. But that’s purely conjecture on my part!

I definitely appreciate this being noticed and attempted haha, but I’d have to agree with @insaneHoshi on two big parts.

1. While it’s not written in the rules specifically, I think he’s right in saying that the warlords aren’t really minor nations in the sense that other countries are minor nations in the game. But I think you could debate that.

2. The biggest thing for me is what he said about an attack on warlords being an attack on all of China. That effectively means that the FEC is de facto attacking the KMT, which they obviously can’t do as a fellow Allied Power.

But a really interesting situation nonetheless.

What I do wonder though in a similar vein, is what would happen with this same scenario but late in the game if the FEC (or any Allied nation) had the ability to attack the CCP and there were still warlords on the board? Don’t get me wrong, this is obviously a slim chance of happening for sure. But maybe the USSR declares war on an Allied power on like the 5th turn lets say and maybe the warlords have been left untouched (and the Axis and Allies are at war with each other per the USSR reference sheet). Well, then the FEC could declare war on the CCP, making all warlords side with the KMT, right? Is that possible I wonder? It’s not an attack on a warlord in this scenario, but still has the same effect of turning warlords to the KMT earlier than would have otherwise happened.

Again, long shot. This would require Japan to have stayed out of China, and for the Axis and Allied powers to already be at war, as well as the CCP haven’t failed to influence the warlords to this point, and/or the CCP or KMT to have attacked the warlords by this point either. But is I suppose technically possible!

Hmm I thought the rules were meant to apply during non-combat movement as well. I think, as seems to happen with many rules in this game, we’re reading the same thing differently as it’s a bit ambigous.

1.8 Mountains (Optional Rule):
Units are subject to Mountain rules on the first round of combat when crossing a mountain border and on all combat rounds in a mountain zone.

Combat: All Attacking land units have -1 Attack.

Movement: All land units (except cavalry) have their movement reduced to 1 when subject to Mountain rules. Units cannot blitz across an Enemy Mountain border or into Mountain terrain.

To me, the section on Movement is separate from that of Combat. Meaning, the Movement section applies to all forms of movement, be that combat or non-combat. But I think I see how you are reading the initial paragraph as the rule being specific to combat movement. But that also to me is just letting you know for how long the Mountain rules apply if attacking a Mountain border or full Mountain territory, not necessarily that that is the Mountain terrain rule, but that that is how you would apply the combat for the Mountain terrain rule.

Could obviously be wrong, but I’ve always played that terrain rules apply in combat and non-combat movements.

@generalhandgrenade The rules don’t really touch on this, but it’s been a topic in another thread recently and this question has made me wonder about a related one.

What happens to Mongolia if/when attacked by the USSR? The rules only discuss Mongolia aligning/being controlled by the Comintern. But if the Comintern attack Mongolia, would Mongolia align/be controlled by the Axis or the Allies? If the Axis, I assume that would be Japan’s sphere of influence?

@didier_de_dax

First situation - Is territory “B” a mountain territory in this situation as well? If yes, then no you would not be able to attack territory “C” from territory “A” if you have to cross a mountainous territory “B”. If territory “B” is not mountains then yes, you could make the attack.

Second situation - I guess this gets wrapped into my questions for the first situation (sorry about that). The answer is no, you can’t move a second space if the first space you move to is a mountain territory.

Third situation - Similar to the first situation. If territories “B” and “C” are not mountainous then yes, your tank can attack to territory “C”. The fact that they start in a mountain territory doesn’t affect this movement as per 1.7:
The territory you are standing in does not count (assume you are standing right at the border).

I hope that helps! Point being, if you have to cross a mountain territory to reach your destination, you would not be able to move the two spaces to attack. This is also true in the event that you own territory “B” as well. It wouldn’t be a blitz attack since you own territory “B”, but if it is mountainous you still cannot move a second space through that territory to attack “C”.

I was going to say the same thing as @insaneHoshi. Table 4-3 is pretty clear on this I think under the “Assigning Alignment and Control” section. All nations that become controlled/aligned by the Axis go to Germany, with the one exception being Siam going to Japan.

@aldrahill Sorry, I guess what’s your question? Just that the game assumes/expects Japan to attack the DEI’s before attacking the Allies?

I guess from the standpoint of what might make sense to actually do in the game, yes, that is, I think, generally assumed to happen. But it’s not like a written rule or anything if that was your overall question?

Sorry if I’m not understanding properly though!

@theveteran Yeah, it’s definitely a good point. I think we’ve really just been overlooking the value of an easy lend-lease area for the CCP by doing this earlier in the game than has typically happened!

Don’t mean to beat a dead horse here, but my immediate reaction to this was that it wouldn’t seem like you were taking defense into account as much as you should have! As the others said, the defense ability makes them very important in and of itself, if you ask me. That alone is worth it.

But if you’re in the north-central Pacific too, there isn’t as many chances for islands as you point out, so if you have two fleets going on, perhaps a northern one would need carriers more heavily than the south.

In terms of offensive capabilities, you do start out one space closer to whatever destination you might have if already on a carrier as opposed to land, and that can certainly make a difference at times also!

@David-06 I guess the point I tried to make earlier was that I don’t necessarily think anything should change regarding this portion of the game concerning Mongolia. I get that this wasn’t historically plausible. But neither was an Allied attack of Belgium or the Netherlands, right? So should we take out the Allied ability in the game to attack them? The Republicans lost the SCW, should there even be a possibility of them winning by playing it out? To me, all historical reality is changed once the game starts, and it’s okay if things happen that probably never had a chance to in real life! I guess I think it’s okay that things happen in game that wouldn’t have historically speaking!

But I’d also agree with @TheVeteran that I wouldn’t make that trade off for VP’s either. Getting two VP’s for those territories is probably far more worth the 2 IPP’s you might get a turn!

@TheVeteran So interesting that our games don’t usually take Mongolia so early! I get there’s IPP’s on the board, which maybe we haven’t considered as much. I think it’s just been used as a buffer a lot until later in the game when it was less likely to be used to backdoor the USSR!

@noneshallpass Thanks so much for the suggestions!

Just out of curiosity, is the spray pain you used glossy? I don’t particularly like that look on units, but I’m also not one to turn my nose up at an easy spray can job either haha.

So, for Light Blue (and really most of these units) I’d probably want a couple like Mountain Infantry, Militia, Cavalry. Those are the big ones popping out at me that I can’t get from HBG. And I figured like a coastal sub and a TBD, just in case those went Free France instead of Vichy.

But yeah, that was my ultimate plan, was to bring some guys to a hobby store and match up colors. I want to finally have one color for each of these armies instead of mixed neutral white haha.

Thanks for all the suggestions!

@insanehoshi While I get your point, that’s already part of the OOB game though. This is adding something extra to it. I guess I’d assume the game creators took into account the Allied cities that presumably will never (or almost never fall) when making the VC’s in terms of balancing. By just giving the Comintern to VP’s that they would have otherwise have had to have earned, there’s just the potential of an unbalancing. That’s really my point. Maybe it’s not huge, I couldn’t say without playing with this. But I think one has to assume that the game OOB is “balanced” in the eyes of the creators, so deviating from that causes the potential for imbalance.

@trig Very good points on early reasons to taking Mongolia. I think forcing a stronger border on Japan and KMT needs to be considered more than I gave it, as I was looking at it solely from the USSR having to defend a longer border! And also a good point on a lend lease route to the CCP.

I definitely get wanting to maintain historical accuracy. But I also try and keep in mind that it’s still a game. If we’re dealing with historical accuracies, we shouldn’t even have the opportunities for neutral powers to be attacked by the Allies at all. I try and look at it as a historical fiction based on historical reality. All actual history gets thrown out the window the moment that first turn in 1936 happens!

@david-06 That’s kind of my whole point, that seems a bit unfair to the Allies and Axis that the Comintern just kind of automatically gets two VP’s, doesn’t it? I get that they have to hold on the them still, but instead of forcing the Comintern to attack and potentially lose units, as well as devote resources to taking them in the first place, they now just automatically get them? I don’t know, it seems like a hard sell to me!

I totally get the reasoning behind this from a historical standpoint. But for gaming purposes that might be harder to do I think.

Does the USSR just get two VP’s for Worldwide Communism then because of this automatically? Or, on the flip side, have you now negated the potential of them obtaining these to VP’s by making it impossible to attack?

To me, this is “giving” the USSR a lot without balancing that out for something for the Axis (presumably Japan). This allows 2 free IPP for the USSR, and the ability to reinforce/move through Mongolia freely, thus making things more interesting for Japan. I guess I’d want to see something to “re-balance”, if you will.

All that said, the Manchukuo Expansion may hit a bit on what you want? It doesn’t really grant the USSR the income or anything, but it does allow for border clashes between Mongolia and Japan. However, I do think @insaneHoshi has a pretty simple and clean way of achieving what you want as well!

Out of curiosity, at what point in the game is Mongolia taken? Our guys tend to like to keep Mongolia as a buffer between China (depending on the situation) most of the time. But I think you see it attacked later in games to try and get those two VP’s for Worldwide Communism!

Hey all, had a question on paints I’m hoping someone here can answer!

As much as I’d love to really paint my armies in realistic schemes, I know that isn’t a project that will happen any time soon.

What I would like to do soon though is get some neutral color units painted in some colors that I need them for. I’m talking about militia, cavalry, subs, etc., to match the minor/neutral national colors that I use for them.

So with that said, does anyone have paint recommendations for HBG units to match what they have? I’m hoping for specifics, like a specific brand you like, but also a specific color within that brand. Like, if there’s a specific orange that matches HBG’s orange for the Dutch, for example. Or a specific color to match HBG’s Yellow-Green that I use for the KMT. Here’s what I’m looking for:

HBG Orange (Dutch)
HBG Yellow-Green (KMT)
HBG USSR Red (CCP)
HBG Mustard Yellow (Romania)
HBG Ivory (Finland)
HBG Dark Grey (Hungary)
HBG Light Grey (Bulgaria/Turkey)
HBG Yellow (Nat. Spain)
HBG Plum (Rep. Spain/Poland)
HBG Blonde (Canada)
HBG Light Blue (Free France)

Any leads greatly appreciated!

@board-3659 I believe Doug’s Youtube update the other day on 7/30/21 said they were hoping for a Thanksgiving 2021 release date. I wouldn’t be surprised if that got pushed back, but that’s the current info that’s been given!

@aldrahill Well that’s a good point there I suppose! I wonder if something was overlooked there. I’m probably misreading that then!

@aldrahill I think that still only applies to non-combat movements though? I could be wrong. I just wanted to point out in case that part was making China unfair in your eyes!

@unrealius No problem at all! I guess I’m glad I saw it and said something, as that seemed to prompt a probable confirmation from @AndrewAAGamer that he too heard from Eric. Would love to hear from you all if this actually happens!